I’m not the only one who’s feeling a bit queasy as Parker makes it was to the Supreme Court. This from my friend and former NRA President Sandy Froman, writing in World Net Daily:

If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court finds that the Second Amendment only grants states a collective right to arm National Guard units, then the consequences for the gun-rights movement could be disastrous. From that moment forward, Second Amendment rights for private citizens would be in serious jeopardy. Gun ownership could become a privilege, not a right (unless you live in a state where the state constitution contains a right to bear arms provision.)

Many millions of Americans, especially those in the middle of the political spectrum, tend to defer to the Supreme Court on constitutional questions. When the Supreme Court speaks on a matter, they tend to trust in its judgment and authority.

Right now, over 70 percent of Americans accept that the Second Amendment gives individual citizens the right to own private firearms. But if the Supreme Court were to say otherwise, you could expect that number to plummet. The next generation of lawyers, scholars, academics and even judges would all be taught as they were growing up that there is no constitutional right to own a gun. These people would shape public opinion and educate those coming after them, until eventually the percentage of Americans believing in the individual rights view might only be 20-30 percent of the population.

Frankly, I think I would rather see Congress strike down the D.C. law, which would automatically negate Parker…either that or have one more card-carrying conservative Justice on the high court.

Maybe I’m worrying needlessly about teh Court, probably the consequences of living with a lawyer for a long time.

It is important to note, the constitution does not GRANT us the right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves, any more than it GRANTS us the right to practice our religion.

We have these rights inherently, as free men.

No law, or court ruling, or amendment can take away my right to defend myself, by force of arms if necessary; and I will actively resist the enforcement of such a law against me, with violence if necessary.

I am no second amendment absolutist. I recognize that violent felons, through their actions, have lost their right to bear arms. I recognize that people who are intoxicated or insane should not have access to arms. I believe that there should be limitations on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction; and there should be storage and safety requirements for high explosives and poisons.

What I will not allow, ever, under any circumstances; is the government to disarm me without just cause; and no law arbitrarily disarming the populace could ever be just, under any circumstances.

There are 70-80 million gun owning household in this country; perhaps as many as 200 million people with guns in their homes. If only 1% of gun owners feel as I do thats at least 700,000 active resisters, perhaps as many as 2 million… and somehow I think it’s more than 1%.

The entire United States armed forces, and every cop in America couldn’t do it.

I’m no conspiracy nut, or separatist, or exilist or milita crazy etc… I’m a veteran, a husband, a father, a churchgoer and an upstanding member of my community.

I took an oath to defend my country, and my constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I intend to do so. Anyone who would pass or enforce such a law has become a domestic enemy of my country, and my constitution.

I WILL kill to defend my rights; and your rights; and everyone else’s rights. I will kill cops, I will kill soldiers, I will kill politicians; I will kill anyone who attempts to abrogate our fundamental rights in such a way; and I have no reservations about dying in the process.

Some things are worth dying for.

I am no radical; I simply recognize that the first step to mass extermination is disarmament; it has been in all cases in recorded history, and will continue to be so. History did not magically disappear, and change human nature with it, when world war two ended. The only proof against mass slaughter, genocide, and democide is an armed and educated populace. It always has been, and always will be.

I am not advocating the violent overthrow of the united states or it’s government; but I tell you right now, if the supreme court decides that we don’t have the right to bear arms in our own defense, against any who threaten us; then the second American revolution will be a heartbeat away.

Now, what I don’t understand, is why this is thought of as a radical proposition. To my mind, we should all feel this way.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

Like this:

LikeLoading...

tarran

I don’t agree.

Given a choice between imprisonment and death on one hand, and a slightly more constrained life, all but a tiny handful will chose the latter.

No politician will send police or soldiers confiscating weapons. They’ll just continue to use the Fabian system of making little changes in the law, demonizing those who protest as crackpots, and let time do its trick.

maelcumx

“We have these rights inherently, as free men.”

Sorry but, as Penn would say, that’s f**kin bullshit!. No i mean, i dont think there’s such a thing as inherently rights, as long as there are lot of thing in our environment that will easily take your life away (other people included).

I can see your point, but ,eventually, going against law is not the solution. Rights develop from a compromise among people, and you will gain from those rights as long as there are enough people who stand for them.

Wild Pegasus

The gun grabbers have learned that gun grabbing is a losing proposition. The defence of RKBA over the past decades has been a political one, not a legal one. What the Supreme Court says on the matter will change little in the political realm. Gun grabbing will still be a loser at the ballot box.

– Josh

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com Chris

Maelcumx; by your logic, if the majority passed a law… or lets say a constitutional amendment even; that said you could kill black people on sight, then that would be OK.

Majority does not make right.

There is NO circumstance under which society can legitmately say, for any reason, that you do not have the right to defend yourself from harm.

Either we are free men, with rights, who grant the state some measure of authority; or we are the property of the state, granted some measure of autonomy by it. There is no middle ground.

David T

There is a perspective that is not always considered by is gun enthusiasts: that their interpretation of the second amendment is wrong and that it does not allow for individuals to possess firearms.

I believe the NRA has done a disservice to its community for years by perpetuating “a right to bear arms” by ignoring the first four words: “A well regulated militia” … which implies that a legislative body at least has some right to levy some restrictions on ownership.

If a legislature can restrict some ownership, it’s not a reach to see that all ownership could also be banned.

I believe that the NRA has known this for years, which is why the DC gun law went unchallenged for nearly three decades. The NRA, as I’ve seen them, vehemently opposes restriction at the state level because once enacted, the restrictions pass muster and don’t violate the 2nd Amendment. They’ve had ample opportunity to challenge over the years – a near total ban – and yet did not. Have you ever wondered why not?

I know that remarks such as this are heretical to gun owners but if this case goes to the Supreme Court, it may result in a rude awakening that the gun ‘right’ never existed.

tarran

David,

Two comments, the Constitution does not declare what rights exist and what do not. Even supporters of strong centralized government like Hamilton admitted this.

Secondly, the words regulate and milita in the 18th century had a very different meaning to the one it is now assigned.

Back then, regulate meant to make regular or, in the case of skills, well practiced and a militia was defined as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 regardless of whether they had been hired by the local government.

So, translating into modern English, in order to ensure that all men are skilled at handling weapons, the right of people to carry weapons will not be interfered with.

Of course, this is an academic argument. Just as I have no right to prohibit you from having sex without a priest’s say so, I have no right to prevent you from carrying a weapon on anything other than my own property. Oh I may have the power to do so, particularly if I have lots of people helping me threaten you, but might makes right is not an acceptable system of morality.

If there is no right to carry weapons, then the most straightforward way that the government can respect this is to unilaterally disarm. No soldier or policeman should be permitted a weapon denied to the meanest of men. Until that day comes, I wish they would stop pretending that their attempts to disarm everyone but those whom government officials approve of is in any way morally defensible.

David T

Tarran, I disagree with you. I’ll try to point out precisely how; be patient if I don’t articulate it correctly.

To say “..if there is no right to carry weapons … no soldier or policeman should carry” allows for no middle ground. Soldiers are de facto protectors of our country from invasion. Policemen are de facto enforcers of the law; some folks resist lawful enforcement and the weapon is an enabler for the officer, just as tasers, tear gas, and handcuffs assist in function of his duties.

But, as you stated – there are no rights in the Constitution, which means there is no right to carry a firearm for self-defense. This is distinct from the right to defend oneself – you may defend yourself, but you may not use a firearm to do so. I’ll say it again – no one disagrees with the right to self-defense, but one does not have the right to use a firearm for that purpose, nor are firearms the only method by which one could defend themselves, either.

I completely disagree with your interpretation of ‘well-regulated’ to mean ‘regular’ militia vice irregulars. I lack the time at the moment to delve further into this point, however.

As for ‘the government approving’ – it is not the government approving anything. It is the interpretation of the second amendment that is the crux; does the 2nd amendment allow an unalienable right to possess firearms or not? If that right does not exist, the government isn’t taking away something that was never there at all.

http://www.pubcrawler.blogspot.com/ tkc

For the most part I agree. And now for the ‘but’…

If Parker goes to the USSC and they go with the collective view of the 2nd Amendment then the reactionary left gun controllers will take that as a sign to say, “Okay all you gun nuts, time to turn them in.” The proper response will be, “No, you come and take them.”

I have a problem with the insane people should be denied guns argument. It is not that I think insane people should have guns, it is that I know some people will twist with the definition of ‘insane’ in order to grab more guns. Such as someone saying, “It is insane to think you need an assault rifle to deer hunt.” or “It is insane to think you need to carry a conealed hand gun.” and so on. Some people will see the fact that you own a gun as a reason to call you insane. And since insane people can’t have guns, the catch-22 is in place.

http://www.pubcrawler.blogspot.com/ tkc

â€œWe have these rights inherently, as free men.â€

Sorry but, as Penn would say, thatâ€™s f**kin bullshit!.

A quick reminder: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

tarran

Dave T.

The moral argument advanced to claim that governments are legitimate is that people have consented to the government and delegated to it certain powers.

According to that argument, if a policeman has a gun, it is because he has been granted that power by the citizenry.

If the citizenry do not have the moral right to carry a gun, they cannot delegate it to the police. If you are correct, and no individual has a right to carry one particular class of weapon, than every policeman and soldier is acting immorally by carrying fire-arms.

It does not matter how badly they “need” them, just as it is irrelevant how much a battered woman “needs” a firearm to defend herself. If the battered woman has no right to keep a snubnosed handgun into her bag, then no soldier has the right to lug around an M-16 either, no matter how much they want to have it.

Last but not least, you say that the government is not approving anything, but somehow, passively the constitution is being interpreted. Interpretation is done by human beings. The people whose interpretation matters, the ones whose decrees then are made reality by men with guns, are members of the judiciary. The last I checked, these guys were drawing pay-checks from the United States treasury.

In effect, they are government officials, and when they decree that only people that the government approves of may carry guns, it is precisely the same act as the the head of the Gambino crime family decreeing that only truckers he approves of can make deliveries to the garment district.

Update: I cleaned up the numerous grammatical errors and misspellings in my original posting.

http://gottsegnet.blogspot.com Dana

I’m tired of the 2nd amendment. I like this one better:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Somehow, the enumeration of rights has had precisely the opposite effect…now we have ten…well, 8 since the last two don’t count…narrowly defined rights.

Joshua

Now, what I donâ€™t understand, is why this is thought of as a radical proposition. To my mind, we should all feel this way.

Part of the problem is that our civilized society holds firmly to the notion that violence between people must not be countenanced (except in the commercial media!) This axiom applies even to [law enforcement officers] who use any level of force, and most certainly deadly force, in the line of duty. The individual who must resort to taking the life of another person, even for the protection of self or others, has been reinforced to feel guilty and rendered incapable of finding psychological resolution of the relevant conflicts.

To which Dr. Helen adds:

If even police officers are made to feel guilty for protecting the lives of citizens by our “don’t defend yourself or anyone else” culture and media, I can’t imagine how civilians who had to use force are made to feel after an incident in which they had to protect themselves or others.

Self-defense and preserving liberty… so uncivilized.

Daemin

tarran

Even if the second amendment is not interpreted as guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms, it does not follow as a logical consequence that you do not have such a right.
As has been pointed out by others, the tenth amendment specifically says the list is not exhaustive, and there are other rights retained by the people that the government cannot infringe. A very convincing argument can be made that historically, regardless of the 2nd amendment, the people have a right to keep and bear arms implied implicitly, by the fact that they did so before the constitution was ratified.
Frankly, I think those pushing the 2nd amendment are barking up the wrong tree. Let them interpret it however they wish (i.e. that the fed cannot interfere with a state militia), and instead push the idea that, having just come out from under what they considered a tyrant, it seems absurd that people would consent to a government that would hamper their ability to do so again. Hence, the right to keep and bear arms was one of the rights that it was felt was unnecessary to explicitly list at the time.

tarran

Daemin,
I think you are arguing with David T. and not me. I don’t completely agree with you, but you and I are pretty much on the same page.